National Republican., 1887-05-12
RetrocessIon Again.

A number Of interviews and commuulca-
tions have been published In some OF the
city papers on the subject OF the retroces-
sion of Alexandria county to Virginia, and
some Of the papers state that the decision OF
the Supreme Court OF the Philips .Payne case
settles the constitutionality OF the cession
10 Virginia.
This is mistake. The court did not con-
slider the consttutionality of the act OF ces-
sion. 1t expressly declined to do so, on
the ground that the parties at interest were
not before the court asking 1t to determine
that question.
The court held that Virginia was de tttctO
in possession Of the territory, and that for
the purposes of this suit It was not neces-
sary to examine whether 1t was dc jtrG so
or not. The court said 1.-THE plaintiff in
error is est3pped from raising the point
which he seeks to have decided. He can
not, under the circum stances, vicariously
raise question, nor force upon the parties
to the compact an issue, which neither OF
them desires to make. In this litigation
we are constrained to regard the dc Jdcto
condition of things which exists with refer
ence to the county of Alexandria as con
ciuSiUe Of The rights of The parties before u.s."
"The parties before the courtn in this
case were a citizen OF Alexandria county
upon the one, an officer OF the county upon
the other, the former suing to recover GER
tain moneys paid under protest to settle
a tax levied by the county on his property.
Mr.. Justice Swayne, in delivering the
opinion, very properly upheld the right OF
dc tacto governments to levy and collect
taxes and perform other acts Of sovereignty
during their existence, and held that it was
not competent to question sovereignty in q
collateral proceeding, or to allow the ques-
tion raised by proceeding to which none
of the parties to the compact transferring
the sovereignty was party.
The citizens Of Alexandria county need
not fear thOt this decision stands blocking
the way of any effort upon their parts to be
restored to the District. 1t does not.
Clause seventeen Of section eight, article
one, of the constitution says: "The Con-
gress shall have power to exercise exclusive
legislation, In all cases whatsoever, over such
district mot exceeding ten miles sq1,re)
as may, by cession of particular states, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the
seat Of the government of the Uatei
States.n
Every lawyerknows the biuding force of
alegiilative contract, that is, OF law
passed by Congress or any legislative body
which requires acceptance by other parties
and which confers any privilege. Such a
law cannot be repealed, even II clause to
that effect Is embodied In 1t, without full
compensation for any damage accruing
through the repeal.
The cession of the territory which com
poses the District OF Columbia by the states
of Virginia and Maryland, and its accept
ance by Congress, made a complete consti.
tutional compact, which can only be legally
undone by the parties who made it: that is
the people Of the United States in conven
tion assembled on the one side, and the state
making the cession on the other side.
II Congress had the right to retrocele tt
the state of Virginia that part of the Dis
trct acquired from it, Of course the SAINT
right exists to retrocede the part acquired
from Maryland back to Maryland. Th,
mere fact that some government building
are standing on the land secured from
Maryland does not lessen the right OF Con
gress, II any such right ever existed.
No such right exists, or ever did exist in
Congress. 1t was a bold ursurpation o
power, and the retrocession conveyed nc
title to Virginia. The county Of Alexan lria
is to day legally a part of the District o.
Columbia, and the parties interested should
take the earliest opportunity to have thu
illegal act of retrocession set aside.